Paper detail

A Comparison of Two Topos-Theoretic Approaches to Quantum Theory

The aim of this paper is to compare the two topos-theoretic approaches to quantum mechanics that may be found in the literature to date. The first approach, which we will call the contravariant approach, was originally proposed by Isham and Butterfield, and was later extended by Doering and Isham. The second approach, which we will call the covariant approach, was developed by Heunen, Landsman and Spitters. Motivated by coarse-graining and the Kochen-Specker theorem, the contravariant approach uses the topos of presheaves on a specific context category, defined as the poset of commutative von Neumann subalgebras of some given von Neumann algebra. In particular, the approach uses the spectral presheaf. The intuitionistic logic of this approach is given by the (complete) Heyting algebra of closed open subob jects of the spectral presheaf. We show that this Heyting algebra is, in a natural way, a locale in the ambient topos, and compare this locale with the internal Gelfand spectrum of the covariant approach. In the covariant approach, a non-commutative C*-algebra (in the topos Set) defines a commutative C*-algebra internal to the topos of covariant functors from the context category to the category of sets. We give an explicit description of the internal Gelfand spectrum of this commutative C*-algebra, from which it follows that the external spectrum is spatial. Using the daseinisation of self-adjoint operators from the contravariant approach, we give a new definition of the daseinisation arrow in the covariant approach and compare it with the original version. States and state-proposition pairing in both approaches are compared. We also investigate the physical interpretation of the covariant approach.

preprint2011arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.